OpenOffice.org Bloatware?

Wed Nov 2 10:29:21 CST 2005

On Wednesday 02 November 2005 06:13 am, Jack wrote:
> --- Jim Herrmann wrote:
> > Leo Mauler wrote:
> > >Oh great.  Any FOSS CD with OpenOffice.org on it
> >
> > would
> >
> > >need a non-FOSS Java installer on it too for a lot
> >
> > of
> >
> > >things (and I presume that Java has restrictive
> > >redistribution licensing...):
> >
> > My new Kubuntu installation uses a JRE from the Free
> > Software Foundation
> > in OOo.  I'm pretty sure that would not be license
> > encumbered.
>
> I don't know why people are so concerned about Java,
> or surprised to find java code in Openoffice. It's
> sort of like being upset when someon includes PHP in a
> php
> shoppingcart application. Openoffice was written by
> Java coders from Sun, people tend to reuse code
> they've written for other application when writing new
> ones. I also have never seen anything so restricvtive
> in Java licensing. Sure it's not as open as GPL, so
> what? There are GPL Java RE versions out there. Use
> one of them if you are so against Java licensing.
> Only, be aware these are not as well supported and
> functional ... yet.

Well, all the hubbub is about the "Java Trap" which RMS has written 
extensively about. This OpenOffice.org move to require Java has prodded 
the FSF Java implementations along quite a bit. So without all that 
complaigning, that might have never happened.

> All this attacking those bearing gifts is a bit over
> the top. Someone makes a really sophisticated office
> application, albeit a bit heavy on resources,
> available for free (as in beer and as in speech), and
> what thanks do they? I'd like to see someon else write
> such a sophisticated app and do it in a less resource
> intensive way. It's not easy write a million lines of
> code and do it in a way that is the most efficient.
> While Koffice is great, there are things OO can do
> that aren't possible to do in KWord or in MS Word for
> that matter.

I hope that people don't think we're attacking. Clearly the OO.o guys 
are doing the best they can with the crappy StarOffice 5.2 code-base 
they had to start with. The grumbling is trying to get someone to pay 
attention to just /how/ bloated it is. As a comparison, OpenOffice is 
5.2 million lines of code; the entirety of KDE (with Konqueror, all its 
video games, the window manager, KOffice, a full email, contact and 
calendar suite, and a plethora of other tools) comes in at only 4.2 
million lines of code. So, clearly, someone here is doing more with 
less. And that's what we want.

See here for a better breakdown:
<http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi/2005/10/29#kloc>
<http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2005/10/november-travel-halloween-qt4-easter.html>

-- 
I use digital signatures and encryption. My key is stored at pgp.mit.edu
0x8DB3BF09 FP: F628 D9D3 E57A C281 5EFE - 7DF7 B52A A393 8DB3 BF09
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20051102/ffb2cc8c/attachment.pgp